GOURAV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 3.1.2019, whereby respondent No.2 has terminated him from service.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Professor on 1.8.2016 in Shri Vaishnav Institution of Computer application by Vice Chancellor of respondent No.2, University. Thereafter, he completed the probation period successfully. The Jt. Registrar of respondent No.2 issued show- cause notice dated 22.12.2018 to him with the direction to submit the reply within two days. The petitioner filed the reply and denied the charges levelled against him. Vide order dated 26.12.2018, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per recommendation of Women Grievance Cell. Vide impugned order dated 3.1.2019, his services have been terminated.

(3.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order of his termination on the ground that he has been imposed major penalty without conducting a detailed departmental enquiry. The impugned order is a non-speaking order. The permanent employee cannot be terminated by an enquiry summery in nature. The appointing authority of the petitioner is Vice Chancellor and the order of termination is passed by the Jt. Registrar, hence the same is liable to be set aside for want of authority. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Brajesh Kumar Kulshreshtha V/s. State of M.P. : 2006 (3) MPHT 1 (NOC), the authorities are bound to assign cogent reasons in the order of punishment under Rule 16 of Rules of 1996.